Slartibartfaster:ethernet76: The spreading of the technology. Iran would be able export materials and knowledge to other countries. Which spreads to other countries, etc. Until you get to the point where highly unstable countries have nukes that may go missing.

remind mewhich country invented nukes then accidentally spread them to all other nuclear nations ?while yer at it, can you list all the countries that have nuked civilian populations

sorry Im getting a bit old my memory gets a bit hazy

You think Iran is going to use them the same way the U.S. did? You think it is the same technology and power as back then when we used them? You live in a very jaded world if you think these are comparable situations.

Daedalus27:El Pachuco: Can anyone rationally explain just why it's so bad for Iran to develop nuclear technologies? Let's say they do want to be able to make bombs. Okay, so what?

There is zero chance they'll just hand them over to some radical terrorist group. No control over the use, plus instant massive retaliation if they're ever used? Why sure! Give Hamas and al Quaida a dozen each!

Well, they'll use them to attack Israel? Number of times Iran has attacked Israel - 0. Number of times Iran has attacked anyone in the past 200 years - 0. Estimated number of nuclear weapons Israel has, and would use to retaliate - 200. Probability that an attack on Israel would be national suicide - 100%.

They'll sell them to other nations, like Syria? See the problems with giving them to terrorist groups above.

Why does Iran want nukes anyway? Well, there's pride in joining the big boy club of the US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. Definitely a deterrent to invasion, but that's self-defense against the US and we're not supposed to talk about that. Development of modern precision manufacturing capabilities, electronics and related supplies too.

So what, exactly, is the real problem worth getting the US into yet another war over?

See here is your problem, your assumptions are wrong.

One, You assume there is zero chance they will hand over the weapons to a third party. That is a flawed assumption in as much as they have consistantly used proxies to engage their enemies and there is a non-negligible chance that they may engage in similar behavior. It certainly isn't a huge risk, but I don't simply dismiss this.

Two, You only utilize attacks on Israel as a judgment of war and peace, what about their neighbors. Iran is currently significantly involved in an ongoing war in Syria. They have actively supported insurgency and terrorism around the world from the middle east, south america, and elsewhere. They have engaged in armed conflict (although they were attacked) in Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s and the corresponding tanker wars. In short, although they have supported terrorism in Israel, they have not attacked them directly, but they have engaged in significant armed conflict with their near neighbors.

Three, you assume that they won't be a proliferation risk. They are already engaging in proliferation of missile technology through cooperation with North Korea and other nations. They freely sell and trade restricted technologies now, so there is little chance that they will avoid selling and trading nuclear technologies

Four, we have not had a theocratic regime with nuclear weapons. Given the ruling makeup of Iran and relative instability of this regime, there is a greater risk that they may utilize nuclear weapons they have, even if it results in adverse consequences for the larger nation. Not every nation utilizes the same value judgments when determining a course of action.

We don't need another unstable regime like Pakistan with nuclear weapons. It increases the chances that these weapons will be used and potentially trigger greater destruction. While nuclear weapons can engage in preventing war, in the hands of a unstable regime such as Iran, it can only increase the risk of their use and an extreme loss of life.

Fella you have a terrible case of the American politics. Everything you wrote screams ignorant American for everyone to see/hear.

LewDux:Slartibartfaster: simplicimus:No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

hehehe those didnt result in US victory

/ just sayin

I was a tie!

publicly yeahmilitarily not so muchPolitically not at all

We should have gone by WWII rules and been done with it but we didn't have the stomach for it on TV.

I am not a war monger and I hate to see the lives of innocent people destroyed because of politics but this would have been one of those "for the greater good" kind of things. If Best Korea and Best Vietnam didnt exist, wouldn't we as a world be just a bit better off?

Of course on the other hand, China and Russia might have gotten into it a whole lot sooner and with actual force so either could have been WWIII - Electric nukealoo

mouschi:Slartibartfaster: ethernet76: The spreading of the technology. Iran would be able export materials and knowledge to other countries. Which spreads to other countries, etc. Until you get to the point where highly unstable countries have nukes that may go missing.

remind mewhich country invented nukes then accidentally spread them to all other nuclear nations ?while yer at it, can you list all the countries that have nuked civilian populations

sorry Im getting a bit old my memory gets a bit hazy

You think Iran is going to use them the same way the U.S. did? You think it is the same technology and power as back then when we used them? You live in a very jaded world if you think these are comparable situations.

Let's cut to the chase: No matter how many times we wave the banner, wring our hands, and call everyone 'poopy-heads', somebody is gonna get one of those things and use it. The cat's outta the bag, y'all. It's too late. Someone is gonna see if they can top our record of mass murder. It's gonna happen.

So, smile, enjoy the sunshine, get laid, and be happy. It's your life passing by, go get it.

spentshells: Fella you have a terrible case of the American politics. Everything you wrote screams ignorant American for everyone to see/hear.

Quit getting all your international news information from tv.

Well please enlighten me on how any of my points are incorrect. I try and get information from multiple sources and not just TV as you asserted. Generally TV is the absolute worst place to gain information as they only have time for sound bites and this certainly is far to complex a matter for that to be adequate. Casually dismissing my comment without any information to counter tends to show your own laziness and ignorance.

sheep snorter:Remember people. Vote Republican President for 2016 so Israel can achieve its goal of committing nuclear Genocide against the big meanies that don't grovel at their dirty feet.

/Oh and a big thanks to the CIA and Saint Reagan for making the Rightwing religious mess known as Iran.//And of course many thanks to the assholes who created Israel and armed them to wipe out the people of Palestine.///Can't commit global nuclear genocide if Israel does not exist, as then the christians won't go to heaven.

I thought it was the brits/us back in the 50s who farked up Iran over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company - AKA - BP.

Nothing serious will be done until they blow Israel off the map. Then western nations will use force, the only measure that will work, to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, but it will still be a victory for Iran and the rest of the Arab world. They would pay almost any price to have Israel gone.

sheep snorter:Remember people. Vote Republican President for 2016 so Israel can achieve its goal of committing nuclear Genocide against the big meanies that don't grovel at their dirty feet.

/Oh and a big thanks to the CIA and Saint Reagan for making the Rightwing religious mess known as Iran.//And of course many thanks to the assholes who created Israel and armed them to wipe out the people of Palestine.///Can't commit global nuclear genocide if Israel does not exist, as then the christians won't go to heaven.

Slartibartfaster:mouschi: You think Iran is going to use them the same way the U.S. did?

Damn, I hope not - wiping out two cities kinda sucked.

What really sucked was the need to wipe out those cities and use the weapons we did. In case you didn't know America wasn't involved in the war until Japan kinda thrust us into it. If Japan had been smart enough to surrender when they had knowingly lost the war it wouldn't have happened. An all out assault on Japans mainland would have killed many more people and destroyed Japan a lot more than those 2 bombs did. You really think Iran is ever going to be in that position?

mouschi:BolloxReader: sheep snorter: Remember people. Vote Republican President for 2016 so Israel can achieve its goal of committing nuclear Genocide against the big meanies that don't grovel at their dirty feet.

/Oh and a big thanks to the CIA and Saint Reagan for making the Rightwing religious mess known as Iran.//And of course many thanks to the assholes who created Israel and armed them to wipe out the people of Palestine.///Can't commit global nuclear genocide if Israel does not exist, as then the christians won't go to heaven.

Kennedy made Iran what it is today. Our best buddy Winston Churchill came asking for him to help topple the democratically elected President and re-install the Shah, because the President of Iran had ran on a platform of nationalizing the oil industry. The abuses of BP in Iran was a huge reason for the Shaw to be deposed in the first place. Kennedy's advisors told him to go ahead because it's Churchill. So the CIA set up a military coup, brought the Shah and his sister back from "retirement." Iran's government today is a direct reaction to our black-ops regime change against their actual attempt at real elected democracy. Read the book "All The Shah's Men" for more information. It was required reading for Anthropological Thought and Theory when I took that class.

Why would he read a book when he can much more easily just blindly blame everything on Republicans and the right wing?

Well, there were several Presidents who kept the support, and who stood by while The Shah did some pretty damn horrible sh*t to his people. It's not a Right Wing or Left Wing thing: it was American policy to support some fairly awful folks, and then abandon them when they were no longer useful. See Afghanistan. See Iraq. This is not one party or another's issue. This was a matter of the nation playing with puppets, and then surprised when years of policy bit is on the ass.

Iran had the most democratic of states when Mossadique was ousted. It led to the religious leaders being the only vaguely safe folks to rally the people, and when the Shah was ousted, we were shocked that none of those leaders wanted anything to do with the US. Not Republicans. Not Democrats. But pretty much anyone from the West.

Piizzadude:LewDux: Slartibartfaster: simplicimus:No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

hehehe those didnt result in US victory

/ just sayin

I was a tie!

publicly yeahmilitarily not so muchPolitically not at all

We should have gone by WWII rules and been done with it but we didn't have the stomach for it on TV.

I am not a war monger and I hate to see the lives of innocent people destroyed because of politics but this would have been one of those "for the greater good" kind of things. If Best Korea and Best Vietnam didnt exist, wouldn't we as a world be just a bit better off?

Of course on the other hand, China and Russia might have gotten into it a whole lot sooner and with actual force so either could have been WWIII - Electric nukealoo

mouschi:What really sucked was the need to wipe out those cities and use the weapons we did. In case you didn't know America wasn't involved in the war until Japan kinda thrust us into it. If Japan had been smart enough to surrender when they had knowingly lost the war it wouldn't have happened. An all out assault on Japans mainland would have killed many more people and destroyed Japan a lot more than those 2 bombs did. You really think Iran is ever going to be in that position?

1/ America WAS involved - trade embargoes and supplying of arms is an act of war2/ Are you HONESTLY saying you are justified in an act of genocide because the other side would not surrender ? fark YOU you fascist pig3/ Yes Iran is likely to be in that position, please specify how it is different ?

Slartibartfaster:ethernet76: The spreading of the technology. Iran would be able export materials and knowledge to other countries. Which spreads to other countries, etc. Until you get to the point where highly unstable countries have nukes that may go missing.

remind mewhich country invented nukes then accidentally spread them to all other nuclear nations ?while yer at it, can you list all the countries that have nuked civilian populations

LewDux:Piizzadude: LewDux: Slartibartfaster: simplicimus:No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

hehehe those didnt result in US victory

/ just sayin

I was a tie!

publicly yeahmilitarily not so muchPolitically not at all

We should have gone by WWII rules and been done with it but we didn't have the stomach for it on TV.

I am not a war monger and I hate to see the lives of innocent people destroyed because of politics but this would have been one of those "for the greater good" kind of things. If Best Korea and Best Vietnam didnt exist, wouldn't we as a world be just a bit better off?

Of course on the other hand, China and Russia might have gotten into it a whole lot sooner and with actual force so either could have been WWIII - Electric nukealoo

Slartibartfaster:mouschi: What really sucked was the need to wipe out those cities and use the weapons we did. In case you didn't know America wasn't involved in the war until Japan kinda thrust us into it. If Japan had been smart enough to surrender when they had knowingly lost the war it wouldn't have happened. An all out assault on Japans mainland would have killed many more people and destroyed Japan a lot more than those 2 bombs did. You really think Iran is ever going to be in that position?

1/ America WAS involved - trade embargoes and supplying of arms is an act of war2/ Are you HONESTLY saying you are justified in an act of genocide because the other side would not surrender ? fark YOU you fascist pig3/ Yes Iran is likely to be in that position, please specify how it is different ?

// Those that do not learn history are doomed to relive it

Yes... I am a facist pig because I support a solution that ended in less lives lost (civilians and military). You sound like a real winner. Do you know what the word genocide means? Clearly you do not. Genocide means we would have wanted to go in and kill every last person. Not keep demanding their surrender.

Trading with allies. Wow, just begging for a military attack I know.

Those that do not learn history are doomed to repeat it? Yes... that is exactly why we should encourage Iran to have nuclear capabilities.

mouschi:Trading with allies. Wow, just begging for a military attack I know

err yea it is

do you know what the word "allies" means ?

mouschi:Those that do not learn history are doomed to repeat it? Yes... that is exactly why we should encourage Iran to have nuclear capabilities.

Who is encouraging them ?I dont want them to have nukes, but US hypocrisy is dripping from their assI didnt want you assholes to have nukes either, but you invented them, you are still the only nation to have used them - so errr, yea STFU

All of this is their fault, really. They shouldn't have out their country there.

Yeah, I know when I want to make a point, I use a map that's been outdated for five years and claims bases that have been closed or no longer are allowed to be used by US forces by their respective country.

There was no need to use the bomb on Japan, let alone twice. That's the consensus among historians (military and mainline) at this point. Japan was also pretty much a pile of burnt wood and assorted rubble thanks to the terror bombing we did on them. And before you jump on the word terror, Gen. Curtis (Bombs Away) LeMay stated that if we had lost the war we would have had men up on war crimes charges. Being the winner pays off, after all. There is also the fact that Truman agreed to drop the bombs not only to win the war, but to send a message to Russia. We were already realizing that the Soviets were going to be a problem. By August 1945, Russia was poised to invade Japan themselves and that could have resulted in a North/South Korea situation. Truman's brain trust figured that the Russians would see the nukes and be more careful. So boom went the bombs. Of course, the Soviets knew about the bomb far in advance of its use and were already working on their own. So outside of preventing Japan from being partitioned, using the bomb was not necessary.

As for Iran, just keep an eye on Israel. Sooner or later they're going to do something about it. Then the real shiatstorm begins.

Kell Hound:There was no need to use the bomb on Japan, let alone twice. That's the consensus among historians (military and mainline) at this point. Japan was also pretty much a pile of burnt wood and assorted rubble thanks to the terror bombing we did on them.

[

- Who?]

If you think that, you have very little grasp of the Japanese Culture pre- and during the Second World War, or little realization of the fact that this was an entire culture willing to sacrifice itself down to the last man, woman, and child for their literal God. In addition, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military-industrial targets.

Kell Hound:By August 1945, Russia was poised to invade Japan themselves and that could have resulted in a North/South Korea situation. Truman's brain trust figured that the Russians would see the nukes and be more careful. So boom went the bombs.

Slartibartfaster:mouschi: Trading with allies. Wow, just begging for a military attack I know

err yea it is

do you know what the word "allies" means ?

mouschi:Those that do not learn history are doomed to repeat it? Yes... that is exactly why we should encourage Iran to have nuclear capabilities.

Who is encouraging them ?I dont want them to have nukes, but US hypocrisy is dripping from their assI didnt want you assholes to have nukes either, but you invented them, you are still the only nation to have used them - so errr, yea STFU

Are you five? You argue like a little kid. "YEAH! STFU" Can you have a decent coherent discussion or are you just going to be sending insults and whining? How is U.S. hypocrisy dripping from our ass? U.S. has them. Can't change that. You just sound more like a U.S. hater than you do anything else on this topic. This is a discussion about whether Iran should have them but you are only arguing that America is hypocritical because we have them. If you don't want Iran to have them than why are you trying to undermind Americas attempt at discouraging them? All you are doing is bashing America and not presenting any real answers. "soo err, yeah STFU".

How can you justify Japans attack on U.S. but be angry at U.S. for attacking back? Who is the hypocrital one here?

Kell Hound:There was no need to use the bomb on Japan, let alone twice. That's the consensus among historians (military and mainline) at this point. Japan was also pretty much a pile of burnt wood and assorted rubble thanks to the terror bombing we did on them. And before you jump on the word terror, Gen. Curtis (Bombs Away) LeMay stated that if we had lost the war we would have had men up on war crimes charges. Being the winner pays off, after all. There is also the fact that Truman agreed to drop the bombs not only to win the war, but to send a message to Russia. We were already realizing that the Soviets were going to be a problem. By August 1945, Russia was poised to invade Japan themselves and that could have resulted in a North/South Korea situation. Truman's brain trust figured that the Russians would see the nukes and be more careful. So boom went the bombs. Of course, the Soviets knew about the bomb far in advance of its use and were already working on their own. So outside of preventing Japan from being partitioned, using the bomb was not necessary.

As for Iran, just keep an eye on Israel. Sooner or later they're going to do something about it. Then the real shiatstorm begins.

Yeah they were giving up real soon before we nuked them:

Faced with the prospect of an invasion of the Home Islands, starting withKyūshū, and the prospect of a Soviet invasion of Manchuria-Japan's last source of natural resources-the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded:

We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.[9]

As a final attempt to stop the Allied advances, the Japanese Imperial High Command planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū codenamedOperation Ketsugō.[10]This was to be a radical departure from thedefense in depthplans used in the invasions ofPeleliu,Iwo Jima, andOkinawa. Instead, everything was staked on the beachhead; more than 3,000kamikazeswould be sent to attack the amphibious transports before troops and cargo were disembarked on the beach.[8]

If this did not drive the Allies away, they planned to send another 3,500 kamikazes along with 5,000Shin'yōsuicide boatsand the remaining destroyers and submarines-"the last of the Navy's operating fleet"-to the beach. If the Allies had fought through this and successfully landed on Kyūshū, only 3,000 planes would have been left to defend the remaining islands, although Kyūshū would be "defended to the last" regardless.[8]A set of caves were excavated near Nagano. In the event of invasion, these caves, theMatsushiro Underground Imperial Headquarters, were to be used by the army to direct the war and to house the emperor and his family.[11]

mouschi:Slartibartfaster: mouschi: What really sucked was the need to wipe out those cities and use the weapons we did. In case you didn't know America wasn't involved in the war until Japan kinda thrust us into it. If Japan had been smart enough to surrender when they had knowingly lost the war it wouldn't have happened. An all out assault on Japans mainland would have killed many more people and destroyed Japan a lot more than those 2 bombs did. You really think Iran is ever going to be in that position?

1/ America WAS involved - trade embargoes and supplying of arms is an act of war2/ Are you HONESTLY saying you are justified in an act of genocide because the other side would not surrender ? fark YOU you fascist pig3/ Yes Iran is likely to be in that position, please specify how it is different ?

// Those that do not learn history are doomed to relive it

Yes... I am a facist pig because I support a solution that ended in less lives lost (civilians and military). You sound like a real winner. Do you know what the word genocide means? Clearly you do not. Genocide means we would have wanted to go in and kill every last person. Not keep demanding their surrender.

Trading with allies. Wow, just begging for a military attack I know.

Those that do not learn history are doomed to repeat it? Yes... that is exactly why we should encourage Iran to have nuclear capabilities.

There isn't any justification for the use of offensive nuclear weapons. You can't argue it saved lives, or it was moral, because we can only guess how those other options would have turned out.

The general consensus among many top military officials - Eisenhower, Leahy, etc. - was Japan was preparing to surrender before the bombs.

mouschi:How can you justify Japans attack on U.S. but be angry at U.S. for attacking back? Who is the hypocrital one here?

I'm interested in knowing how he reconciles the fact that the US has repeatedly apologized, as a nation, for the loss of life that Japan incurred on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, while Japan - as a nation - is engaged in systematic denialism of the atrocities it committed during World War II, ranging from the Rape of Nanking, to the use of POWs and Political Prisoners, as well as Chinese Civilians as test animals for chemical and biological warfare experiments.

But yes. I'm supposed to feel bad for the deaths of 150,000 people, much of whom who were actively engaged in cottage industries in support of a war effort which had up to that point cost the lives of around 20 Million Non-combattants. After they were given multiple chances to surrender. And after they were warned through leaflet campaigns to GTFO.

ethernet76:There isn't any justification for the use of offensive nuclear weapons. You can't argue it saved lives, or it was moral, because we can only guess how those other options would have turned out.

The general consensus among many top military officials - Eisenhower, Leahy, etc. - was Japan was preparing to surrender before the bombs.

History and reality disagrees with what you claim. They were not seeking a surrender. They wanted an "end of hostilities" that would have established a cold war structure with the current imperialist government remaining in power.

hardinparamedic:History and reality disagrees with what you claim. They were not seeking a surrender. They wanted an "end of hostilities" that would have established a cold war structure with the current imperialist government remaining in power

So what yer saying is the US inventing nukes and use them, stopped the cold war.

ethernet76:There isn't any justification for the use of offensive nuclear weapons. You can't argue it saved lives, or it was moral, because we can only guess how those other options would have turned out.

The general consensus among many top military officials - Eisenhower, Leahy, etc. - was Japan was preparing to surrender before the bombs.

It was wrong. We did it. Get over it.

You sound like an angry, stupid child. Come back when you can make a coherent argument and back up your claims with citations. Unmtil then, please hush and let the adults speak.

These are the Cubans, baby. This is the Cohibas, the Montecristos. This is a kinetic-kill, side-winder vehicle with a secondary cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine RDX burst. It's capable of busting a bunker under the bunker you just busted. If it were any smarter, it'd write a book, a book that would make Ulysses look like it was written in crayon. It would read it to you. This is my Eiffel Tower. This is my Rachmaninoff's Third. My Pieta. It's completely elegant, it's bafflingly beautiful, and it's capable of reducing the population of any standing structure to zero. I call it "The Ex-Wife."

mouschi:Why would he read a book when he can much more easily just blindly blame everything on Republicans and the right wing?

Because reading might lead him to see it was Eisenhower instead of Kennedy. Not that either party has particularly clean hands when it comes to foreign relations but the destruction of democracy in Iran rests pretty squarely on Eisenhower. What's worse is that he knew it was a bad idea but went along with it anyway.

Slartibartfaster:So what yer saying is the US inventing nukes and use them, stopped the cold war.

Only if you have a poor grasp of reading and history. Which seems to be the case. You do realize that a "Cold War" is a general concept, not necessarily referring to "THE Cold War" between the US and Russia/USSR right?

But hey. The Deaths of hundreds of thousands of people AND the borderline genocidal destruction of the Japanese Culture via invasion and armed occupation against the will of the Emperor of Japan doesn't leave as bad of a taste in people's mouth, does it?

spentshells:Daedalus27: El Pachuco: Can anyone rationally explain just why it's so bad for Iran to develop nuclear technologies? Let's say they do want to be able to make bombs. Okay, so what?

There is zero chance they'll just hand them over to some radical terrorist group. No control over the use, plus instant massive retaliation if they're ever used? Why sure! Give Hamas and al Quaida a dozen each!

Well, they'll use them to attack Israel? Number of times Iran has attacked Israel - 0. Number of times Iran has attacked anyone in the past 200 years - 0. Estimated number of nuclear weapons Israel has, and would use to retaliate - 200. Probability that an attack on Israel would be national suicide - 100%.

They'll sell them to other nations, like Syria? See the problems with giving them to terrorist groups above.

Why does Iran want nukes anyway? Well, there's pride in joining the big boy club of the US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. Definitely a deterrent to invasion, but that's self-defense against the US and we're not supposed to talk about that. Development of modern precision manufacturing capabilities, electronics and related supplies too.

So what, exactly, is the real problem worth getting the US into yet another war over?

See here is your problem, your assumptions are wrong.

One, You assume there is zero chance they will hand over the weapons to a third party. That is a flawed assumption in as much as they have consistantly used proxies to engage their enemies and there is a non-negligible chance that they may engage in similar behavior. It certainly isn't a huge risk, but I don't simply dismiss this.

Two, You only utilize attacks on Israel as a judgment of war and peace, what about their neighbors. Iran is currently significantly involved in an ongoing war in Syria. They have actively supported insurgency and terrorism around the world from the middle east, south america, and elsewhere. They have engaged in armed conflict (although they were attacked) in Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s and the corresponding tanker wars. In short, although they have supported terrorism in Israel, they have not attacked them directly, but they have engaged in significant armed conflict with their near neighbors.

Three, you assume that they won't be a proliferation risk. They are already engaging in proliferation of missile technology through cooperation with North Korea and other nations. They freely sell and trade restricted technologies now, so there is little chance that they will avoid selling and trading nuclear technologies

Four, we have not had a theocratic regime with nuclear weapons. Given the ruling makeup of Iran and relative instability of this regime, there is a greater risk that they may utilize nuclear weapons they have, even if it results in adverse consequences for the larger nation. Not every nation utilizes the same value judgments when determining a course of action.

We don't need another unstable regime like Pakistan with nuclear weapons. It increases the chances that these weapons will be used and potentially trigger greater destruction. While nuclear weapons can engage in preventing war, in the hands of a unstable regime such as Iran, it can only increase the risk of their use and an extreme loss of life.

Fella you have a terrible case of the American politics. Everything you wrote screams ignorant American for everyone to see/hear.

Quit getting all your international news information from tv.

This. Also points one through three are also reasons why the U.S. shouldn't have nukes too.

ethernet76:There isn't any justification for the use of offensive nuclear weapons. You can't argue it saved lives, or it was moral, because we can only guess how those other options would have turned out.

The general consensus among many top military officials - Eisenhower, Leahy, etc. - was Japan was preparing to surrender before the bombs.

It was wrong. We did it. Get over it.

yes I can.

I am going to be generous with the death toll.

As a total result of dropping those 2 bombs we killed 20M people.

There were 100Million people in japan at the time so that leaves us 80M People. 50% are women and childeren so we have 40M left but we have to give a higher percentage for those fighting the war. so lets say we only have 30M left

They were never going to surrender. We bombed them and they did. We saved 30M lives.

I know it is backwards thinking but it is what is was for the times.

They were not going to give up unless it was on their terms and that would have been a disaster.